[uf-discuss] hCite progress
scott at randomchaos.com
Tue Nov 14 16:59:52 PST 2006
On Nov 14, 2006, at 3:57 PM, Jeremy Boggs wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2006, at 3:04 PM, Scott Reynen wrote:
>> I'd say it's not a use case at all, as no on has really described
>> how this markup would be used by parsing applications.
> Does the "it's" to which you're referring, Scott, mean hCite for a
> reviewed book in general, or marking up page numbers specifically?
Neither. I was referring only to page count (which is different than
> I'm starting to see that page count might be out scope, but I'm
> still open to it.
I'm certainly open to it too. I'd just like to see some reason for
including additional markup, some way it actually helps us do
anything, so we're not just adding markup for markup's sake.
>> What exactly would we gain from this markup in terms of
> If you're referring to my question about page numbers, perhaps
> nothing. I'm totally fine with leaving it blank, or not including
> it within hCitation; I point out reviews as another example of how
> they're used, so the community could consider it. I only want to
> make sure that, if in fact page count is out of scope, do we simple
> ignore it in the markup?
Yes. Nearly every type of microformat published in the wild contains
content that isn't part of the microformat's purpose. Parsers just
ignore this unrelated content. But it can still be intermingled in
> My understanding of why page counts exist in book review
> bibliographic information is that it is a legacy from older
> problems with knowing which book is the "right" book, or the book
> your referring to; I might refer to a version that has, say, 438
> pages, but there might be another print run that had, for various
> reasons, 420 pages. This is so much a problem anymore, so maybe it
> isn't a problem for hCite.
If that were a common problem I think it would be a compelling reason
to include page counts. But if it's just an edge case, hCite can
still be useful to the 80% (or more) cases where page count is
irrelevant, and people can still read the page count where it's
relevant even if machines can't.
>> If it's in a review and it's describing the item you're reviewing,
>> I'd say it belongs in hReview's description field.
> I completely agree. From my understanding, that information
> included inside the DESCRIPTION field in hReview could be marked up
> with hCitation. hReview isn't, however, listed in the "Modularity"
> section of the citation page, though I imagine it could be.
> Is there a reason why hCite could not be used in a book review
> marked up in hReview?
I don't see any. You have to cite a book before you can review it,
>> If there is a need to describe page count more specifically, I'm
>> still not clear what it is. Searching books by page count?
> If marking up content to make it searchable is the primary purpose
> of hCitation, then I'd agree that page count is out of scope.
That was just a question, not an attempt to declare the scope of hCite.
More information about the microformats-discuss